Israel dragging USA down

[Shermana]

But its okay when Arab countries mass expel 1,000,000 Jews (many who have roots before Arabic was ever spoken in them) and confiscate $300 billion in property. One of my earlier plans was to simply have them repay Israel by accepting some Arabs and paying for the development costs from Morocco to Iraq, that could easily fix it.

No need to address the specifics of my proposal or the factuality of Jordan as Palestine. Are you aware they were planning Jewish population transfers in the initial 1948 arrangement before the Arab nations invaded? APparently it's fine if the Jews are kicked out of Gaza (by their own government!) or the "Illegal Settlements" are removed?

Also, comparing the removal of Jewish populations in Europe to this situation is as inaccurate of a comparison as you can get. Were the Jews launching attacks on Christian positions every day? Do you think they were really poisoning their wells? (PS the Palestinians were trying to poison Jewish wells in the 1940s when they were allied with Hitler).

 

[Mr Spinkles]

But its okay when Arab countries mass expel 1,000,000 Jews (many who have roots before Arabic was ever spoken in them) and confiscate $300 billion in property.

No. I can say very confidently, that is not okay. And it's also not okay when you advocate the same thing against Arabs. This is an elementary exercise in ethics, and you are failing miserably.

 

[Badran]

How is it a nation then? What defines a nation?

Nation

A nation may refer to a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, and/or history.[1] In this definition, a nation has no physical borders. However, it can also refer to people who share a common territory and government (for example the inhabitants of a sovereign state) irrespective of their ethnic make-up.[2][3] In international relations, nation can refer to a country or sovereign state.[1] The word nation can more specifically refer to a tribe of North American Indians, such as the Cherokee Nation.[1]

Nation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why is Jordan not their nation?

Because its not. I'm not saying based on history where they "should" or "shouldn't" belong, i'm just saying things the way they are.

Why are the settlements "illegal"? Why must we apply UN terminology?

Why on earth would i exempt Israel from what applies to everybody else?

The term "Palestinian" was not even used until 1963. Why such a long wait before an actual national title was used?

I fail to see how that is relevant.

The War of Independence (1948)
You'll have to explain why things have changed since, especially with that whole picture of Israel on Fatah's logo and their national charter.

No, i don't have to do any such thing. You haven't yet substantiated your claim. Neither with the quality of the source, or what it actually says.

That's usually how most foreign policy is dictated, apparently it's different for Israel that they're not supposed to make decisions based on their enemies plans? I would like to see numbers on how many "Palestinian" Arabs support Israel's continued existence.

Your method of dodging, shifting the blame, and attempting to make it look like Israel is a victim of some selective judgement can only work for so long, do you understand that?

Where have i implied in anyway that Israel's case is different than anybody else's case?

I didn't ask you whether making decisions based on their enemies plans is normal or not, or even whether that was good or not. I asked you do you decide whether or not a policy is good based on the decision made by your enemies regarding that policy?

That is, if your enemies are okay with doing something, are you okay with doing it too regardless? (assuming they actually are, which is not the case).

Yes.

Ah, i see, how unfortunate.

 

[Shermana]

No. I can say very confidently, that is not okay. And it's also not okay when you advocate the same thing against Arabs. This is an elementary exercise in ethics, and you are failing miserably.

Well that's a nice opinion. Telling me that I"m failing miserably doesn't subsitute as an actual reply to anything I said. So should the Arabs repay the Jews the $300 billion or not?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I already answered your question in this post, in another thread.

 

[Shermana]

Nation

A nation may refer to a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, and/or history.[1] In this definition, a nation has no physical borders. However, it can also refer to people who share a common territory and government (for example the inhabitants of a sovereign state) irrespective of their ethnic make-up.[2][3] In international relations, nation can refer to a country or sovereign state.[1] The word nation can more specifically refer to a tribe of North American Indians, such as the Cherokee Nation.[1]

Nation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So do you advocate the Lakota being given the Dakotas too? Apparently the definition of Nation is pretty vague. Is my local town a nation? The PA is not a sovereign state. So far, all signs point to Jordan being their state.

Because its not. I'm not saying based on history where they "should" or "shouldn't" belong, i'm just saying things the way they are.

Well, I like to look at the whole story, the past as well as potential future, and not just the 'here and now". YOu're welcome to only look at the immediate.

Why on earth would i exempt Israel from what applies to everybody else?

Good question, so I assume you retract what you said about Israel not planning accordingly to what their enemies are doing?

I fail to see how that is relevant.

I figured. It has something to do with why the "Palestinians" are a distinct nation.

No, i don't have to do any such thing. You haven't yet substantiated your claim. Neither with the quality of the source, or what it actually says.

OKay, so anything after 1948 doesn't count. I disagree. If you have a problem with the "Quality of the source" you'll have to actually explain what claims you disagree with, rather than just attacking the source. Why don't you show a "Quality source" in your terms? Al-Jazeera?

Your method of dodging, shifting the blame, and attempting to make it look like Israel is a victim of some selective judgement can only work for so long, do you understand that?

Dodging what? Shifting what blame exactly? Who is shifting blame here? Selective judgment? No, I don't understand the specifics of what you mean, I do understand this is a bunch of rhetoric though. Try more details on what you mean.

Where have i implied in anyway that Israel's case is different than anybody else's case?

When you said Israel shouldn't make decisions based on what their enemies are up to for one thing.

I didn't ask you whether making decisions based on their enemies plans is normal or not, or even whether that was good or not. I asked you do you decide whether or not a policy is good based on the decision made by your enemies regarding that policy?

Of course I think its a good policy to plan on what your enemies are up to.

That is, if your enemies are okay with doing something, are you okay with doing it too regardless? (assuming they actually are, which is not the case).

I don't see why Israel should be held to some standard that others don't have to hold to, Israel should be prepared to use whatever tactics its enemies are using, i don't see why not. I really don't. In fact I think it's anti-Jewish to think Israel has to restrain their hands. You say it's "Not the case", okay, so what's the point of the Separation wall in the first place again? Are you saying they want to allow the Jewish "Illegal" (cough cough) settlers to stay? Do you agree Fatah should have to change their logo and national charter or not?

Ah, i see, how unfortunate.

You're welcome to your opinion.

 

[Shermana]

I already answered your question in this post, in another thread.

If you think Bygones should be bygones and the Arabs shouldn't have to repay the $300 billion they stole from the Jews, then you should have no problem with the Jordan option.

 

[Badran]

So do you advocate the Lakota being given the Dakotas too?

I'm not familiar with any specifics regarding that to give any valid judgement on it.

Apparently the definition of Nation is pretty vague. Is my local town a nation?

Possibly, i don't know where do you live, but i'm guessing its a town in a country somewhere. Your town is part of a nation, if your town has some specific identities or features differing or are distinct from the rest of the country that is something recognized, however you're still both willfully and as it is part of the country you're in.

Such specifics won't make any difference though if someone were advocating that we relocate you based on your race or things of the like, my answer to him would still be the same.

The PA is not a sovereign state. So far, all signs point to Jordan being their state.

Let me make it clear again, i'm not talking about where people "should" be, and who are they supposed to belong to, i'm talking about what they already are. They are a nation and they live in a certain position right now. You're advocating that we move them elsewhere. The entire burden of explanations is on you, not anybody else.

Well, I like to look at the whole story, the past as well as potential future, and not just the 'here and now". YOu're welcome to only look at the immediate.

Thats not what i mean and you already know that. And if you actually didn't, then the previous part of this post should explain it to you.

Good question, so I assume you retract what you said about Israel not planning accordingly to what their enemies are doing?

No, i don't, because i never said such thing. I will though, later in this post, attempt to show you in specific how ridiculous this question is (although i partially already did in the previous post).

I figured. It has something to do with why the "Palestinians" are a distinct nation.

Not really. Because, like i said, they already are.

OKay, so anything after 1948 doesn't count. I disagree.

Okay, i'll make this simple: Thats not what i said or meant. Feel free to try again though.

If you have a problem with the "Quality of the source" you'll have to actually explain what claims you disagree with, rather than just attacking the source.

Your miserable misrepresentation and inaccuracy of addressing the points is getting really tiring. Please try something else.

What i said was, neither the quality of the source (which means what is the source itself, if a news website for example, how neutral it is etc..) or what it actually says substantiate your claim. Its quality is poor obviously, because its an unknown source just stating things. What is that site exactly?

What it claims, is object-able, because it doesn't back up what you said. You said 4.3 million Arabs want to drive the Jews out (including to the sea etc..), your source gives no such thing to substantiate that. You were referring to Palestinians right? Palestinians of today correct?

Why don't you show a "Quality source" in your terms? Al-Jazeera?

I wish i was in a good mood, at least i would have enjoyed this.

Dodging what?

Questions.

[/B]Shifting what blame exactly? Who is shifting blame here?

You are, to anybody and anything else away from Israel.

Selective judgment? No, I don't understand the specifics of what you mean, I do understand this is a bunch of rhetoric though. Try more details on what you mean.

With pleasure. For example, when you say this:

I don't see why Israel should be held to some standard that others don't have to hold to

Which is something you keep implying amongst loads of other things, you're attempting to make it seem like people are applying judgments on Israel that they don't apply to anybody else.

This, amongst other things, is mostly what you're relying on in your posts rather than actually addressing the points.

When you said Israel shouldn't make decisions based on what their enemies are up to for one thing.

Of course I think its a good policy to plan on what your enemies are up to.

This is another good example. You're claiming that i said something which i actually didn't, and are answering something i didn't ask, and clarified specifically that i'm not asking. But thats okay, you answered my question indirectly and probably unintentionally in another part.

Israel should be prepared to use whatever tactics its enemies are using, i don't see why not.

I see. So if your enemies are killing civilians, you're okay with killing civilians. If they're killing children, you're okay with killing children etc... Thats okay, you're obviously free to have such horrifying stance on the matter. It would have been much easier though if you simply answered the question straight forward from the start.

I really don't. In fact I think it's anti-Jewish to think Israel has to restrain their hands.

I'm sure you do.

You say it's "Not the case", okay, so what's the point of the Separation wall in the first place again? Are you saying they want to allow the Jewish "Illegal" (cough cough) settlers to stay? Do you agree Fatah should have to change their logo and national charter or not?

What i was saying "not the case" to was your claim that 4.3 million Arabs want Jews...............

I'll feel compelled to engage in more specifics when you actually care to back up your claim or embrace the fact that it was just disgusting and pathetic slur aimed to diverge the conversation from its course (again, amongst the countless other things you're doing to accomplish that same purpose).

 

[Shermana]

I'm not familiar with any specifics regarding that to give any valid judgement on it.

Well we can call it a stalemate on the issue of what constitutes a "Nation" then I suppose.

Possibly, i don't know where do you live, but i'm guessing its a town in a country somewhere. Your town is part of a nation, if your town has some specific identities or features differing or are distinct from the rest of the country that is something recognized, however you're still both willfully and as it is part of the country you're in.

And why is that any different for Arabs in Judea-Samaria? The borders are Israel. They can move if they want. I know nice Palestinians in America, they get by just fine. No need for them to starve and suffer under their separatist regime over land that's not theirs.

Such specifics won't make any difference though if someone were advocating that we relocate you based on your race or things of the like, my answer to him would still be the same.

Well I disagree, I believe specifics and relative facts are important for such major issues. Relocation based on race is something the Arabs have not had a problem with, Jews, Kurds, and Assyrians seem to be on the brunt end usually, but when it's the Arabs' turn, oh no!

Let me make it clear again, i'm not talking about where people "should" be, and who are they supposed to belong to, i'm talking about what they already are.

So am I, and I'm saying its best for them to make their homes in Jordan which is 80% of the original Mandate and was the initial agreement for "Arab Palestine", and thus let the Jews have Judea-Samaria which is their land. Why does the Jews' claim to Judea-Samaria not matter? Population numbers?

They are a nation and they live in a certain position right now. You're advocating that we move them elsewhere. The entire burden of explanations is on you, not anybody else.

Well I disagree that the Palestinians are a nation. I am advocating that they move based on the same reality that they have tried to make the Jews move. It would be better for them in every single way. People who disagree with the Jordan plan would rather have them suffer for their ideology.

Thats not what i mean and you already know that. And if you actually didn't, then the previous part of this post should explain it to you.

Forgive me if I misunderstood what you meant.

No, i don't, because i never said such thing. I will though, later in this post, attempt to show you in specific how ridiculous this question is (although i partially already did in the previous post).

Not really. Because, like i said, they already are.

Well in my opinion, they are not a distinct "nation" anymore than the Jordanians, so it's matter of how to interpret that murky word "Nation".

Okay, i'll make this simple: Thats not what i said or meant. Feel free to try again though.

Are you saying that they did not state that their goal was to throw the Jews into the sea in the 1948 war? What part about the issue of Fatah's logo did you not understand what I meant about showing what their designs were?

Your miserable misrepresentation and inaccuracy of addressing the points is getting really tiring. Please try something else.

Apparently asking you to explain why my source is not quality is too miserable misinterpretation?

What i said was, neither the quality of the source (which means what is the source itself, if a news website for example, how neutral it is etc..) or what it actually says substantiate your claim. Its quality is poor obviously, because its an unknown source just stating things. What is that site exactly?

It's not so obvious to me, please explain why its so obvious. Here's an even worse source saying the same thing: Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What it claims, is object-able, because it doesn't back up what you said. You said 4.3 million Arabs want to drive the Jews out (including to the sea etc..), your source gives no such thing to substantiate that. You were referring to Palestinians right? Palestinians of today correct?

I will retract for now until I find numbers on how many Palestinians still support the 1948 position. Perhaps they might start by redrawing Fatah's logo to not include the whole borders of Israel, that would be a good place to start.

I wish i was in a good mood, at least i would have enjoyed this.

Well I'm sorry you're in a bad mood.

Questions.

The only question I may have "dodged" is referring to modern opinions of the 1948 position, which I will try to find numbers for, last I remember there was a 70% majority saying they "think there will be a third intifada", however you can interpret that, maybe they just all think it will happen, maybe they are planning on participating, for now I will retract on this claim until I get further statistics when I'm not as busy.

'70% of Palestinians expect third intifada... JPost - Middle East

You are, to anybody and anything else away from Israel.

But that's not really addressing the specifics of why I advocate such, merely accusing me.

With pleasure. For example, when you say this:



Which is something you keep implying amongst loads of other things, you're attempting to make it seem like people are applying judgments on Israel that they don't apply to anybody else.

Do you see 1/100th of the attention focussed on Iraq and Turkey's treatment of Kurds for example? Why do the Jews get singled out for being on the defense?

This, amongst other things, is mostly what you're relying on in your posts rather than actually addressing the points.

I've addressed almost every point, I will have to get more up-to-date stats on how many Palestinians support the next Intifada as opposed to simply expecting it.

This is another good example. You're claiming that i said something which i actually didn't, and are answering something i didn't ask, and clarified specifically that i'm not asking. But thats okay, you answered my question indirectly and probably unintentionally in another part.

Perhaps I misunderstood you to mean that you think Israel shouldn't make decisions based on its enemie's actions.

I see. So if your enemies are killing civilians, you're okay with killing civilians. If they're killing children, you're okay with killing children etc... Thats okay, you're obviously free to have such horrifying stance on the matter. It would have been much easier though if you simply answered the question straight forward from the start.

Well, I don't advocate attacking civilian populations for the heck of it if it serves no military goal, when I say "the same tactics", I'm talking about military action on military targets without regards to the eggshells of worrying about their human shields they leave in the areas they're firing from. BUT if Syria for example starts launching Chemical missiles at Tel Aviv, I see no reason why Israel should be limited in its response. Attacks on civilians should never happen, and the mere fact that Israel has to endure this should be all the justification ANY country needs to utterly obliterate such. If some Mexican separatist group started launching rockets at San Diego, you can rest assured they'd be massacred to the last man by the US gov.

I'm sure you do.

Why should Israel have to restrain its hand in cases where the enemy is deliberately playing unfair like using human shields?

What i was saying "not the case" to was your claim that 4.3 million Arabs want Jews...............

I'll feel compelled to engage in more specifics when you actually care to back up your claim or embrace the fact that it was just disgusting and pathetic slur aimed to diverge the conversation from its course (again, amongst the countless other things you're doing to accomplish that same purpose).

I will find more up to date examples on what exactly the opinions of the Palestinian populace are for another war. In the meantime, I see no reason why the Jordan plan is not a viable option. Do you think Israel should be compensated the $300 billion by the Arab countries if it allows a Palestinian state?

 

[Shermana]

Let's start here:

Top Fatah official: 'PA won't be able to s... JPost - Middle East

WHY can't Fatah stop the 3rd intifada? Does this mean most of their population supports it and they can't control it? I think this is pretty tell-tale.

 

[Badran]

Well we can call it a stalemate on the issue of what constitutes a "Nation" then I suppose.

My lack of information regarding a subject doesn't negate the fact that Palestine meats the definition of a nation.

And why is that any different for Arabs in Judea-Samaria? The borders are Israel. They can move if they want. I know nice Palestinians in America, they get by just fine. No need for them to starve and suffer under their separatist regime over land that's not theirs.

YOU can move if you want, go live in Germany or something. Jews there get by just fine today. No need to fight over land that is not yours.

See? Its easy to engage in such exchanges. However, reality is, such statements are naive, hateful, disgusting, bigoted... i can go on and on about how horrible and unconstructive such statements are.

Well I disagree, I believe specifics and relative facts are important for such major issues. Relocation based on race is something the Arabs have not had a problem with, Jews, Kurds, and Assyrians seem to be on the brunt end usually, but when it's the Arabs' turn, oh no!

Care to back up this claim? Or would you rather admit its a ridiculous generalization quickly and get it over with?

Not all Arabs were okay or are okay with any of those things. Leaders and a portion of populations, were unfortunately however. And the same is the case with your side.

However your generalizations are still unacceptable, naive and do not help in this conversation.

Well I disagree that the Palestinians are a nation.

You're certainly entitled to disagree, but you'd still be wrong all the same. The fact of the matter is they are a nation according to the definition of the word whether you want to acknowledge that or not.

I am advocating that they move based on the same reality that they have tried to make the Jews move.

Okay, and i'm advocating that Jews move to Germany too based on the reality that not only they're asking for the same, but they actually already did and are doing that.

(i'm actually not, but i'm doing the same as i did earlier, attempting to show you why this is both wrong and fruitless).

It would be better for them in every single way.

Same with Jews in Germany, i'm sure they'll like it there.

People who disagree with the Jordan plan would rather have them suffer for their ideology.

No, i would rather they have both what they want and what they're entitled to.

Forgive me if I misunderstood what you meant.

No problem.

Are you saying that they did not state that their goal was to throw the Jews into the sea in the 1948 war? What part about the issue of Fatah's logo did you not understand what I meant about showing what their designs were?

No, i'm not talking about Palestinian leadership at all.

Apparently asking you to explain why my source is not quality is too miserable misinterpretation?

No its not, and i did address your question. However the consistent either misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what i'm saying is indicating something.

It's not so obvious to me, please explain why its so obvious. Here's an even worse source saying the same thing: Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its not a quality source because its an unknown source stating things. Its contents are objectable because they do not address or back up your claim, which is something you acknowledge later on in this post.

The same goes for the Wikipedia article you just linked, it doesn't actually back up your claim in anyway.

I will retract for now until I find numbers on how many Palestinians still support the 1948 position. Perhaps they might start by redrawing Fatah's logo to not include the whole borders of Israel, that would be a good place to start.

The only question I may have "dodged" is referring to modern opinions of the 1948 position, which I will try to find numbers for, last I remember there was a 70% majority saying they "think there will be a third intifada", however you can interpret that, maybe they just all think it will happen, maybe they are planning on participating, for now I will retract on this claim until I get further statistics when I'm not as busy.

'70% of Palestinians expect third intifada... JPost - Middle East

I've addressed almost every point, I will have to get more up-to-date stats on how many Palestinians support the next Intifada as opposed to simply expecting it.

I will find more up to date examples on what exactly the opinions of the Palestinian populace are for another war.

Okay then, thanks.

And, something to put in mind, intifada doesn't equate to "wanting to move the Jews including to the sea".

Well I'm sorry you're in a bad mood.

Thank you.

But that's not really addressing the specifics of why I advocate such, merely accusing me.

I wasn't addressing your specific position of advocating Jordan as a new home to Palestinians, i was addressing your methods or arguments in general.

Do you see 1/100th of the attention focussed on Iraq and Turkey's treatment of Kurds for example? Why do the Jews get singled out for being on the defense?

I don't see them being singled out, however i agree that generally there seems to be more aimed at Israel than other situations. That, could be and is for many reasons.

Regardless of those reasons now, thats not an excuse to keep accusing everybody who is discussing or debating the subject of engaging in that same practice. Or excuse the constant shifting of blame.

This is a topic discussing Israel, complaining about discussing Israel in particular is thus unjustified. And if it weren't for the fact that criticism of Israel is often met by delusional and unrelenting defense, it would have been a less stressed matter and the debates would be much less frequent and fruitless.

I'm not saying it wouldn't have been a big issue, because it is. However things would've been considerably different.

Well, I don't advocate attacking civilian populations for the heck of it if it serves no military goal

Serving military goal or not, attacking civilians is something i can never excuse. I'm sorry that you feel its sometimes justified.

when I say "the same tactics", I'm talking about military action on military targets without regards to the eggshells of worrying about their human shields they leave in the areas they're firing from. BUT if Syria for example starts launching Chemical missiles at Tel Aviv, I see no reason why Israel should be limited in its response. Attacks on civilians should never happen, and the mere fact that Israel has to endure this should be all the justification ANY country needs to utterly obliterate such. If some Mexican separatist group started launching rockets at San Diego, you can rest assured they'd be massacred to the last man by the US gov.

Why should Israel have to restrain its hand in cases where the enemy is deliberately playing unfair like using human shields?

Because right and wrong is not determined based on whether or not your enemy is doing it too. If you're enemy is attacking you, its justified to defend yourself, to hit back etc... However, if your enemy is actively targeting children and you do the same, that has absolutely no bearing on how wrong you are, or justify your position. You'd still be dead wrong. (I can of course discuss in more detail why the first is okay in my view while the second is not, but we'd be drifting very much from this topic).

Also because if it doesn't then its just as criminal as what that enemy is doing, and putting in mind the difference between power, the resulting casualties, and the fact that Israelis have a state while Palestinians do not, and that they're engaged in grabbing more land throughout this conflict, makes Israel the side on which much more blame will be thrown.

In the meantime, I see no reason why the Jordan plan is not a viable option.

Its not viable because its nonsense. Because it ignores what this issue is all about. Because its unfair, because it could be applied the same way to Jews or Israelis etc...

Take your pick.

Do you think Israel should be compensated the $300 billion by the Arab countries if it allows a Palestinian state?

Not if they allow, families or whoever is still alive of their lineage of people who were expelled from Arab countries should be compensated.

So do Palestinians however.

 

[Alceste]

Well that's a nice opinion. Telling me that I"m failing miserably doesn't subsitute as an actual reply to anything I said. So should the Arabs repay the Jews the $300 billion or not?

Do you think the Jews should repay the Arabs for the Nakba?

 

[Alceste]

Let's start here:

Top Fatah official: 'PA won't be able to s... JPost - Middle East

WHY can't Fatah stop the 3rd intifada? Does this mean most of their population supports it and they can't control it? I think this is pretty tell-tale.

There is no difference between your ideology and that of Fatah.

I think it's a spectacular feat of cognitive dissonance that you can not see this for yourself. It's the most astounding display of hypocrisy I've ever seen. Your ideology is EXACTLY THE SAME as theirs, and yet you insist their ideology is evil and yours is righteous.

Everybody can see this but you. Even your fellow Jews can see it. It's amazing. What is your religion? I don't know anything about messianic judaism, but it seems I should become interested, just as I am interested in Islamic extremism and Christian fundamentalism.

 

[Kathryn]

Relocate Palestinians to Jordan? I pity the Palestinians who might end up there. Jordan has revoked the citizenship of 40,000 Palestinians in the past few months, with no end to this action in sight.

Arab support of Palestinian rights seems to only apply to a scenario involving the division and eventual destruction of the state of Israel.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Arab support of Palestinian rights seems to only apply to a scenario involving the division and eventual destruction of the state of Israel.

That has not been my experience.

 

[Revoltingest]

Arab support of Palestinian rights seems to only apply to a scenario involving the division and eventual destruction of the state of Israel.

I wouldn't read too much into this impression. Harsh words will fly from various sources
on both sides, but circumstances change, & peaceful coexistence is possible. Certainly,
some must get past religiosity & heated emotions of the times.

 

[Kathryn]

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." George Orwell.

“We have discovered how to hit the Jews where they are most vulnerable. The Jews love life, so that is what we will take from them. We are going to win, because they love life and we love death.” – Hassan Nasrallah, Secretary General of Hezbollah

'We are discussing the current problems and when we speak about Jerusalem it doesn't mean we have forgotten about Hebron or about Jaffa or about Acre . . . We are speaking about the current problems that have priority at a certain time. It doesn't mean that we have given up . . . We have announced a number of times that, from a religious point of view, Palestine from the sea [Mediterranean] to the river [Jordan] is Islamic." Sheikh lkrima Sabri PA-APPOINTED MUFTI OF JERUSALEM AND PALESTINE

We distinguish the strategic, long-term goals from the politically phased goals, which we are compelled to accept temporarily due to international pressure . . . Palestine according to the higher strategy is "from the river to the sea." Palestine in its entirety is an Arab land, the land of the Arab nation.' Faisal Husseini PA REPRESENTATIVE FOR JERUSALEM AFFAIRS

'Whether they return to negotiations or not, and whether they fulfill the agreements or not, the political plan is a temporary agreement, and the conflict remains eternal, will not be locked, and the agreements being talked about are regarding the current balance of power. As to the struggle, it will continue. It may pause at times, but in the final analysis, Palestine is ours from the sea to the river.' Abdullah AI-HouraniCHAIRMAN, PALESTINIAN COUNCIL POLITICAL COMMITTEE

"I don’t want to involve myself in the various arguments about why Israel was created . . . . . I want to deal with the situation at hand which is the ongoing killing on both sides. . . . . . . It’s true that there’s also much oppression of Palestinians in Arab countries, where Palestinians aren’t allowed to vote or own property and are treated as second class citizens and pawns in the fight against Israel. But I’m not going to spend my time on this since there is isn’t a whole lot I can do about it." Michael Moore

"The past leaders of our movement left us a clear message to keep Eretz Israel from the Sea to the River Jordan for future generations, for the mass aliya (=Jewish immigration), and for the Jewish people, all of whom will be gathered into this country." [FONT=verdana,arial]- Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir [/FONT]



This is what's called an "impasse."

 

[Awoon]

Why doesn't the Semitic family in the Near East kiss and make up, instead of being in the headlines of western newspapers every day over their stupid FAMILY FEUD?

 

[Revoltingest]

Many people say many things.
Seldom are they significant in the long run.
But no impasse lasts forever.
Will it end badly or well?
That depends upon decisions made....not quotes.

 

[Kathryn]

Well, duh, Bacon Man.

The reason why I posted the quotes was two fold - one, to show that there is indeed quite a bit of talk about Palestinians claiming Israel from the Jordan to the sea, and also to show the diversity of opinions about israel or Palestine.

I wasn't trying to prove anything but I will say that I do not believe that there will really be any winners in this impasse of wills and goals. At least not any living in Palestine/Israel/whatever you want to call it.